by back2dafront 28 Replies latest social entertainment
NATIONAL laws, not state.
Using individual US states as examples can't apply, because their isn't really anything any more distinguishing the states. It's too easy to buy a gun in one (with lax laws) to take it into another (with strict laws), with the intention of being better armed than the local population.
In any case, alcohol doesn't kill people. (Well, alright, yes it CAN, but it's really, really hard to, and you'll probably pass out from it a long time before it kills you).
No, 'morally' and 'statistically' as in, with NO EXCEPTIONS, there is a DIRECT correlation between the strictness of a nation's gun control laws and its crime rate. The easier it is to get a gun, the higher the murder rate in the country. Every country - no exceptions.
Xander,
You have a fatal flaw in your argument. You include the Murders commited by citizens against other citizens, but you EXCLUDE the muders commited by the Govt against their people.
Lets see, for starters we have:
Pol Pot: 1,000,000+
Stalin: 25,000,000+
Chairmen Moa: ???????
Rwanda: 500,000 in 6 months
Hitler: Hard to say with the war and all but the first thing he did was ban private ownership of guns, but we know we have the non-military slaughter of the Jews for 6,000,000
Lets not forget the Phillipines, numerous African, and Central/South American countries, Iraq, the Phillipines, etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...
So in total we have 25,000 killed Americans a year vs 40+ Million people killed by their Govt (and it keeps growing)
Sorry Xander but you lose.
Umm...I am going to guess those of you who are ranting about gun control haven't seen the movie. It doesn't advocate getting rid of guns at all, it just asks to look at the United States and why are WE the nation with such problems with guns. It's more a sociological profile than saying "get rid of guns" or "no we need guns"...Before you critcize have the decency to be informed.
joannadandy:
What I'm saying is that I'm not interested in the topic, hence not going. I'm sure it's a very good movie - I've seen much of his other stuff (in fact, IIRC, he actually had a very entertaining, but terribly short lived TV series).
Crazy151drinker:
Your argument, by implication, is that if the citizens of those nations HAD guns, the government would not have killed so many.
May I ask what basis you use for that conclusion? Has an armed populace EVER been successful in stopping government oppression without more bloodshed than the government would have been responsible for anyway?
Alcohol doesnt kill people???
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2000 America experienced the largest percentage increase in alcohol-related traffic deaths on record. 17,380 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes - an average of one every half-hour. These deaths constituted approximately 41 percent of the 41,945 total traffic fatalities.
In 2001, 17,448 people were killed in crashes involving alcohol, representing 41 percent of the 42,116 people killed in all traffic crashes (no change from the 41% killed in 2000). (New Fatality Analysis Reporting System, FARS, NHTSA 2002)
Murders:
You do the Math. Firearms kill less people than DRUNK DRIVING. Thats not including the long time economic and social cost of Alcohol Abuse. Also, you must consider that many murders and crimes occur when the Criminal is INTOXICATED. How many assaults are Alcohol Related???
Sorry Xander. Your just plain Wrong.
May I ask what basis you use for that conclusion? Has an armed populace EVER been successful in stopping government oppression without more bloodshed than the government would have been responsible for anyway?
Well, I do know that an Armed populace defeated the British. I hardly think a Russian uprising would have killed more people than Stalin. Im sure the Cambodians would have loved the chance being that they were being systimaticly starved to death.
The point Xander is that it hasnt happened because Govt dont OPRESS armed populations! If they try you get things like the American Revolution.
Joan:
I plan to see the movie. Yes I understand that its about why we are like we are, not that it should be changed. I'll argue that this country was founded and is continued to be fueled by people who are independent , sometimes trouble, highly competitive, and energetic- this leads to conflict.
Well, I do know that an Armed populace defeated the British. I hardly think a Russian uprising would have killed more people than Stalin. Im sure the Cambodians would have loved the chance being that they were being systimaticly starved to death.
And how does this apply today?
Would mind sharing with us which firearm - even illegal fully automatic weapons - would be more useful than a baseball bat against an M1A2's armor should the US government suddenly turn into a dictatorship?
Or, which firearm would be more useful than, say, a knife against B-52s carpet bombing 'seditious' neighborhoods?
The time when mere firearms alone could make a difference in world politics is passed. Their only function now is in use against citizens by other citizens.
alcohol-related traffic deaths on record
BZZZT - alcohol RELATED. The alcohol didn't kill anyone - it was the irresponsible driver who did.
If someone shoots you with a gun, they may have pulled the trigger, but it was the gun that killed you.
If they wanted to do violence on you with, say, a baseball bat, they may 'pull the trigger', but since the gun isn't there, there odds of killing you are much lower.
If someone wants to get high and drive, whether they use alcohol, drugs, or sleep deprivation, they will kill someone. That alcohol is the device used is incidental.
You are comparing the means to an end (alcohol) vs something that IS an end (gun).
To recap: Alcohol itself does not kill (well, as I said, it CAN, but it's hard to)....guns DO kill.
(If you REALLY wanted an apples to apples argument, you should be arguing against CARS, not alcohol.)
Edited by - Xander on 13 December 2002 17:38:10
Xander:
If you look at ANY military in the world you will see one common thread. People. They all have people. Tanks dont win battles by themselves. Planes dont fly by themselves. You have to have people. People dont do so well against bullets so a nice M-16 would do quite well.
The time when mere firearms alone could make a difference in world politics is passed. Their only function now is in use against citizens by other citizens.
Tell that to the civilians in Rwanda that were hacked to death with machettes. You make the presumption that all countries have fancy tanks and B-52s which is false. The majority of the countries kill their people with troops. Did Stalin go around killing people with tanks? NO. He SHOT them. HITLER SHOT PEOPLE. The sad reality Xander is that it is too EXPENSIVE to kill people with Planes and Tanks. Its much cheaper to shoot them. A bullet only costs a quarter.
How can you say apples and oranges? A gun is just a gun until someone aims it at someone and pulls the trigger. Just like a beer is just a beer until you get into a car. If you want to say that the car is the problem as it is the weapon then I would say that the bullet is the problem as it is the weapon. The gun doesnt do a thing. Just like the Alcohol doesnt do a thing.
People are so quick to think that banning something will make it go away. Its just plain stupid.
Xander - BUT IT'S A REELY FUNNY MOVIE!!
They interview real people and and the answers they get from teens, adults, marylin manson, and charleston heston alike are hilarious. I haven't heard an audience laugh so continually thru a movie in a long time.
So don't see it for political reasons. See it for a laff at humanity!
SPAZ
